November 29, 2007
fleming v Zemeckis
To solicit from a medievalist a review of Robert Zemeckis's Beowulf is to pick a quarrel unlikely to be evaded. The eminent Cambridge classicist Richard Bentley famously put down Alexander Pope's translation of Greek epic with a single sentence: "It is a pretty poem, Mr. Pope, but you must not call it Homer." "Pretty" is not the first adjective I would choose to describe Zemeckis's Beowulf. Fantastic, amazing, preposterous, corny from springing leaf to ripening ear, technically brilliant perhaps, enjoyable after a fashion--but "pretty," no. This Beowulf is all about the animated monsters. Grendel appears to be a very large version of Freddy Krueger made of Kevlar papier-maché. (His submerged "identity" as Crispin Glover is too faint to deserve mention.) He roars, rips, eats people head-first, then drools in probably symbolic fashion over the supine body of Robin Wright Penn. I mean, like, gross. The huge final flying dragon, wing-flapper, maiden-threatener, buttress-buster, more flame-thrower than fire-breather, is one mean worm. Years from now the film may well claim at least an honorable mention in cinematic history for its increment in the effects of animation through "motion capture." So far as more ordinary history goes, it has a lot to answer for.
more from TNR here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 12:03 PM | Permalink
Comments
Grendel's mother represents power, lust, virility, strength, the continuation of a line. Why should a Mythical Monster not be monstrous in more than simple form? Grendel himself was monstrous in form, and yet not so much internally. Always, even in the ancient poem. Wanting to be left alone, to the quiet.
And what was this about "A brother to Dragons?" Beowulf was a Father to dragons.
Hrothgar was old, drunken, a king who had Attempted to do well by his people, and felt himself to have Failed.
The Gaiman and Avery treatment of the poem was not, in fact the complete faithfulness to the original. It was an interpretation, which saw clear that which the poem left vague. The work has merits on its own terms, and sought to give a retelling of the story through the lens of a more accurate portrayal of that Scandinavian "heroic" life.
If you did not like that interpretation, that's one thing, but to call it "not Beowulf" is both redundant and absurd.
Posted by: Damien | Nov 29, 2007 7:32:42 PM
I agree with Damien.
Mythical figures are interpreted differently in every era.
Posted by: beajerry | Nov 30, 2007 12:51:30 AM
Post a comment